< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·
|May-22-08|| ||neveramaster: Chernev:
Baron Kolisch must have been a happy man. He was a chess player, and that satisfied his soul. He was a millionaire, and that satisfied his wife.
|Apr-06-09|| ||WhiteRook48: Happy birthday GM (?) Kolisch!|
|Apr-06-09|| ||whiteshark: Happy Birthday, Herr Baron!|
|Apr-06-09|| ||whiteshark: Bio: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_...
|Apr-06-10|| ||wordfunph: In 1860, George Webb Medley lost a match to Ignatz Kolisch (+0=2-2). Against Medley, Kolisch sometimes took two hours for three moves. After this match, there was a push to have a time limit in chess, which led to the introduction of sand glasses and clocks in chess.|
happy birthday Ignatz..
|Apr-06-12|| ||whiteshark: <Player of the Day>|
He introduced <3...Bb4> in the French Defence here in his London 1861 match against L. Paulsen: Paulsen vs Kolisch, 1861 and Paulsen vs Kolisch, 1861
|Apr-06-12|| ||Penguincw: R.I.P. Austrian master Kolisch.|
|Apr-06-12|| ||juan31: Desde mi perspectiva ( de simple aficionado) Ignatz Von Kolisch = Genio del ajedrez|
|Nov-01-12|| ||thomastonk: His German Wikipedia page states that he did several chess columns in newspapers from Vienna in the 1850s (using the pseudonym Ideka). Does anybody know a name of such a newspaper? Thank you in advance.|
|Oct-09-13|| ||Karpova: <Austria - We have hitherto omitted to mention that Herr Kolisch, the winner of the Paris Tourney of 1867, has lately been created a Baron of the Austrian Empire. Not long ago he purchased a handsome villa on the Kahlenberg near Vienna, and on Sept. 14th had the honour of an unexpected visit there from the Empress and her two brothers.>|
From page 15 of the January 1882 'British Chess Magazine'
|Apr-17-14|| ||zanzibar: The Sunday New York Herald of 1889-09-01 contains Kolisch's obit:|
<"Absurd stories published to the effect that Kolisch was ennobled by the Emperor on account of his chess talent and that he challenged Morphy after winning the world's championship in the Paris Tourney of 1867. [...]
Kolisch never challenged Morphy, nor even proposed to play a match with him, and the story regarding the challenge, as explained by Kolisch himself, simply grew out of a letter which he wrote to Morphy five years previous to the time of the Paris tournament, wherein he solicited the honor of playing a few games with the world's champion. Morphy replied that he had issued a public offer to give any one the odds of pawn and move, and be pleased to play him upon those terms. Why Kolisch, or in fact any of the other of the noted European masters, did not see fit to accept Morphy's den (?) is a mere matter of conjecture, scarely pertinent to the case, although it would be impossible to find any one who had ever played with Morphy who was not convinced that he was a class above the players of modern times">
|Apr-17-14|| ||zanzibar: The article cites his 1867 Paris game of
G Neumann vs Kolisch, 1867 as "one of his greatest efforts".
It also claims "Kolisch was the best problem solver in Europe".
Here is one of his favorite positions, an endgame study by J.G. Campbell of London, "which he delighted to show":
(White to move and draw)
click for larger view
|Apr-17-14|| ||perfidious: <kramputz: Stalin had a hex on Botvinnik>|
And not a small one over Keres....
|Apr-17-14|| ||thomastonk: "The Chess Monthly", volume 5, 1861, page 159 wrote:|
<Kolish and Morphy
In an answer to a correspondent, the editor of the <London Illustrated News> [probably the chess editor Howard Staunton] says: "We believe it is perfectly true that a wealthy foreign nobleman has offered to back Mr. Kolisch in a match against the American player, Morphy, for £500 aside, and that a challenge has been forwarded to the latter."
Such a contest would be deeply interesting, and would put Mr. Morphy's extraordinary power's more thoroughly to the test than any of his numerous encounters have yet done. Our opinion is that Mr. Morphy will win at least two thirds of the games if the match comes off.>
Volume 4 of "The Chess Monthly" appeared with
"EDITED BY PAUL MORPHY, ESQ. AND DANIEL W. FISKE, M.A[.]"
The issues of volume 5 didn't mentioned any editor, and the journal ceased during that year (possibly after the issue the quote is taken from).
|Apr-17-14|| ||thomastonk: From the "Birmingham Daily Post" of May 3, 1861.
<A NEW OPPONENT TO MORPHY
Mr. Kolisch, an eminent metroplitan practitioner, has circulated among provincial chess-payers the following resolution, agreed to at a meeting held on the 12th of April in the St. George's Chess Club, London: -
"Mr. Kolisch having intimated to several members of the Metropolitan Chess Clubs his willingness to play a match with Mr. Paul Morphy, it was considered most advisable, in order to bring about so interesting an event, that a committee should at once be formed.
"The following gentlemen having been appointed: Lord Arthur Hay, N.Strode, Esq., Thomas J. Hampton, Esq., St. George's Club, Herr J.Löwenthal, St. James Club ; George Maude, Esq., London Chess Club; it was resolved that the above-named gentlemen be requested on behalf of the undersigned to promote and carry out the necessary arrangements for inviting Mr. Paul Morphy to play a match at chess with Herr Ignace Kolisch."
[Here follow the signatures of the distinguished London chess-players who co-operate with Mr. Kolisch in his undertaking. The list includes the names of Lord Lyttelton and Mr. Mongredien (the presidents of leading chess societies), Viscount Cremorne, Sir John Trelawny, &c.]
The comittee has already resolved upon the form and substance of a letter to be sent to Mr. Morphy, and will shortly forward it to that gentleman. In forwarding the circular, Mr. Kolisch states that he would be glad to have a preliminary skirmish with players of the Birmingham or any other chess club that will arrange for his paying them a brief visit.>
That's the entire article, where the [..] is an originbal part of that article and not an addition of mine. The first " remained unmatched.
|Apr-17-14|| ||zanzibar: RE: Kolisch vs Morphy Match (or lack thereof)
First - two corrections to my previous post.
(1) "The Sunday New York Herald of 1889-09-01 contains Kolisch's obit:" should read
<The Sunday New York Herald of 1889-09-29 contains Kolisch's obit>
The link is correct, but the date is the 29th of Sept, 1889.
(2) Next, "den (?)" should almost certainly read "défi" - i.e. challenge, from the French verb défier.
* * * * *
Thanks <thomastonk> for those information glimpses into the past. Your biographical prowess is impressive.
(Do you have professional library tools - or do you use your own indexing system? Whichever it is, it seems to work well).
I'll have more to say later, right now I'm rushing through. But note that both articles date from 1861, whereas the intro above, and most other affirmative sources, indicate the challenge dated from 1863. Curious.
Next, as for Morphy's editing responsibilities, Bill Wall offers the following:
<While in New York, Paul was offered to co-edit the Chess Monthly, edited by Daniel Fiske (1831-1904). Morphy was to provide annotated games.>
This makes sense to me, that Morphy's role would be limited, involve his expertise, and really only require him to forward copy to an address.
|Apr-18-14|| ||thomastonk: <zanzibar: Do you have professional library tools - or do you use your own indexing system?>
I'm very much old-fashioned with my archive: folders, subfolders, lists etc.|
<Whichever it is, it seems to work well>
The sources I quoted have no relation to my archive. When I read your quote from the NY Herald, I remembered that there is something in "The Chess Monthly" and I found it. Thereafter I did an online research and found the "Birmingham Daily Post". That's all. Done in my break after dinner.
The story about this non-match is still very much incomplete, and one starting point to tell it or to begin research could be the time after Morphy's return from Europe, when he rejected to play Paulsen in a match on equal terms. I have some fragments in my memory, but it would be serious work to fill them with substance. There is a (response) letter from Morphy to Kolisch, I'm sure, where he agrees to a match to be played in Europe sometime in the future, but without any stake. Most probably, you will find the details already in some Morphy biography.
|Apr-18-14|| ||zanzibar: <thomastonk> Just to compare notes for a second. |
I think the old-fashioned way is useful - especially since it maps well into the creator's organizational bents (ie tendencies).
I did try to find the Birmingham Daily Post online, but arrived here instead:
The url part "blcsGoAway" telling me to go away is rather humorous.
* * * *
RE: Morphy -- Kolisch Match
The articles you quote aren't in contradiction with the one I quoted really. The editor of LIN is reporting hearsay, otherwise it wouldn't need qualifying ("We believe"). CM then just entertains the speculation.
Having Morphy as co-editor doesn't mean much in such speculation. It's likely he never saw it, but it would be nice to know the exact date of publication. There was much political unrest at the time, and Morphy was practicing law or traveling largely.
The BDP article is believable as well, as Kolisch was emerging as one of the best, if not, the best, player of the time. The article never says a letter was delivered to Morphy with the challenge. In fact, Kolisch seemed more interested in using this challenge to engage and introduce himself to the club, as the last paragraph shows. More investigation is needed (as always).
What is also in need of investigation is this reference in the NYH article I cited:
<Kolisch never challenged Morphy, nor even proposed to play a match with him, and the story regarding the challenge, as explained by Kolisch himself [...]>
Now, does the "explained by Kolisch himself" apply to the entire content of the sentence, or just to the end of the sentence (the [...] describing the letters exchanged)?
Since it is from Kolisch himself, it would be nice to know if there is a definitive source.
|Apr-18-14|| ||zanzibar: <From the 1889-09-29 NYH (New York Herald):>|
Another Kolisch favorite problem, an M2, from S. Loyd:
<It was an impromptu affair, composed at a dinner given just prior to the Paris tournament and a wager made no one could master it in under an hour>
(White to move)
click for larger view
(Hint for previous problem: "self-immobilization")
|Apr-18-14|| ||thomastonk: <zanzibar> Just now only a few remarks. |
The arcticle in the NYH of 1889 isn't worthless, but its value concerns other questions, say, did Kolisch in his later life deny that he challenged Morphy, and, if so, why? So, I'm not going to discuss this article in detail, when I talk about what happened in the 1860s (primary/secondary source - a principle I always respect).
The 1860s are very well documented and easily accessible. Links to online journals can be found for example here: http://www.chessarch.com/library/ma.... You can extent your search to newspapers at chessarch or somewhere else. Of course, a good Morphy biography can be of great help, too.
Morphy's response to Kolisch's challenge can be found in the "Chess Player's Chronicle" of 1861, p 196.
|Apr-18-14|| ||zanzibar: To change the subject for a moment...
Kolisch achieved his early success at chess, but later went on to fame and true fortune as a banker. His chess playing may have been responsible for that as well -
In <Habitues of the Cafe de la Regence>
(Winter - "Chess Facts and Fables", p220 pbk):
<The late Baron Kolisch may be said to have risen to rank and fortune over the chessboards of the Cafe de la Regence, where he made his first appearance in the '60s and for a long time was content to delve among the <mazettes> at half a franc a game. He was a jovial and amusing companion, and had the good luck to make a friend of a stockbroker fond of chess who gave Kolisch an opening as a <coulissier>, or commission agent at the Paris Bourse. Here his business talents attracted the attention of the Rothschilds, and his futrue career was assured.">
(CN 3368 - an extract of James Moritimer's reminiscences on p173-178 of May 1905 BCM).
|Apr-19-14|| ||thomastonk: <zanzibar: To change the subject for a moment... >|
Feels like the same subject to me. You found a source and drew already a conclusion, but I cannot see any verification.
Academical historians use many categories of sources to avoid mistakes. Here is an example from chess history that illustrates the dangers of family sources: http://www.chessarch.com/archive/00....
The NYH article belongs to those sources, which German historians call 'ex post' (I don't know, if this term is used in English, too), like many obituaries. James Mortimer's reminiscences are written decades later, too, and they seem to be quite anecdotical.
You are an energetic and well motivated person. Please use some time to learn the basics of historial work. Otherwise you are in danger to become a successful <source plunderer>.
|Apr-19-14|| ||zanzibar: <thomastonk> As Winter would write "We have read your comment with interest..."|
I'm a little confused about your cautions. Not the last one so much, as I haven't researched it, but your first advisement.
I've read it before, but any excuse for a re-reading is a good excuse. However, consider the imperative at the end:
"The conclusion I would like to present to chess biographers is this: <Do not limit the range of research to old chess columns and chess periodicals>. We have to look for confirmation of the “facts” in non-chess related literature and in the record offices, or archives, of schools, universities, churches, cemeteries and hospitals."
An obituary in a general circulation newpaper, such as the New York Herald, is not a chess periodical, nor exactly a chess column. As a non-professional, I certainly will never have access to the other records referred to.
<Feels like the same subject to me. You found a source and drew already a conclusion, but I cannot see any verification.>
What exactly you are referring to here isn't exactly clear to me. I posted two quotes, one from Winter the other from the NY Herald, so some further specification would be helpful. And it's inconclusive which conclusion is being called into question.
I'm a little on a defensive footing without knowing what exactly is in need of defending.
But I know that you were observing Lent, let's rejoin the discussion next week. I have an hypothesis of events which seems to fit all the known record (ie known to me). It would be interesting to have you critique it.
Let me close by wishing you a Joyeuses Pâques (as we used to say in Genève)
|Apr-21-14|| ||zanzibar: <thomastonk> you provided me with a reference article, and I'll do the same for you. |
The essence is contained here:
It's Winter's treatment of the infamous Steinitz-Blackburne "dust-up".
(I should look up the German word for "dust-up"... not there, but "fight" is = kampfen, fechten, sich schlagen)
Winter shows how the story can become distorted in contemporary (i.e. modern) retelling.
But even more critical is the fact that the story may be confused from its very inception. The point is that even the contemporaneous sources can be in conflict, and contain truths and almost truths, even if retold by the very participants who are the only people who can recount the story, but who find it next to impossible to recount unbiasedly, even if given time to gain some distance and perspective on the event of interest.
With Kolisch we may have some parallels in both the telling and retelling of his challenge to Morphy.
OK then, here are the auxiliary links to fill out Winter's treatment:
|May-19-14|| ||zanzibar: <thomastonk> (and others)|
Maybe batgirl has been following our discussion here? She cites the <Daily Alta> article I ref'ed above:
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 4 OF 4 ·